Comparison of a sports-hydration drink containing high amylose starch with usual hydration practice in Australian rules footballers during intense summer training

Figures & data

Table 1 SpORS Formulation and comparison to formulations for WHO ORS and a selected sports drink; components shown making up to 1 L in drinking water

Fig. 1 Mean hematocrit for the Intervention and Control arms at assessment points immediately pre-training, at the end of training and at the end of recovery. Intervention vs Control: p = 0.02 overall, p = 0.34 at pre-training, p = 0.14 at post-training and p = 0.08 at conclusion of recovery. Vertical lines are standard errors. N = 50, 45, 45 for Control, and N = 50, 46, 43 for Intervention for each time-point respectively

Fig. 2 Mean body weights (observed) for the Intervention and Control arms at assessment points immediately pre-training, at the end of training and at the end of recovery. Intervention vs Control: p = 0.02 at pre-training, p = 0.002 at post-training and p < 0.001 at conclusion of recovery. Vertical lines are standard errors. N = 50, 45, 45 for Control, and N = 50, 46, 43 for Intervention for each time-point respectively

Table 2 Adjusted body weights at each Assessment time in each arm, showing percentage changes and significance (mixed effects model)

Fig. 3 Weight (observed) changes for each Arm (Control and Intervention) at each assessment point, relative to the pre-training measurement in the Control arm. Vertical bars are standard errors

Table 3 Mean exercise time and intensity in the Control and Intervention arms as measured across four days for each arm (mixed effects model)

Table 4 Mean ± SD from Likert scale data (1 = Not at all to 5 = extremely) on subjective feelings (n = 27)